Warner Bros: New Program To Digitize Your DVDs

shoutingloudly writes "Warner Brothers has just announced a new 'Disc-to-Digital' program to convert your DVDs into digital files that you can play on your internet-connected computers. As the helpful Public Knowledge graphics demonstrate, all you have to do is find a participating store, drive there, pay again for your movie, wait while it's ripped for you, drive home, and hope it works. This will surely have tech-savvy movie fans saying, 'Brilliant! I've been looking for an excuse to uninstall this free, 1-step DVD ripper that I can use in the comfort of my own home. This is much better than DMCA reform.'" In exchange for paying a bit more you might get a higher resolution copy (DRM encumbered and stored in "the cloud"). The launch process is absurdly cumbersome, but: "Later on, Internet retailers like Amazon.com will email customers to offer digital copies of DVDs they previously bought. Eventually, consumers will be able to put DVDs into PCs or certain Blu-ray players that will upload a copy, similar to the way people turn music CDs into MP3 files." Will the video distributors ever offer DRM-free files that you own? The music industry doesn't seem to be any worse off than they were when they insisted upon DRM.

Comments

For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[elrous0]

Wow, what a deal.

Seriously, who the hell is in charge at Warner Home Video these days? When DVD first came out in 1997, Warner was one of the leaders in DVD's. They offered the best extras, were the first to make anamorphic DVD's their standard (meaning my first Warner DVD's still look pretty good even on a HDTV), and were real cheerleaders for the format back when a lot of people were saying things like "Why would Joe Sixpack want to give up his VHS tapes?" and "Laserdisc looks so much better" (I kid you not, those were prominent arguments against DVD in those days).

But in the last few years, their home video department has went to shit. Their support for early HD-DVD and blu-ray was weak. Their blu-ray discs these days are almost as annoying with the upfront/unskippable trailers as Sony. Even their extras seem weak these days.

You used to be cool, Warner.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Samantha Wright]

Don't be silly; obviously this is the most exciting revolution the film industry has ever seen! Can't you see how cutting-edge and novel this technology is? Why, I'm sure absolutely everyone will line up to use this revolutionary and convenient service before you can blink! The future is today!

...now wait for them to kill it, and whine about how it's obviously impossible to capitalize on digital distribution.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[elrous0]

...now wait for them to kill it, and whine about how it's obviously impossible to capitalize on digital distribution.

No, like that one incompetent ninja who only got in because his dad was a ninja, they'll find a way to blame pirates for all their screw-ups.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[tripleevenfall]

It's not about being resistant to doing things in a new way.

Nobody is protesting the fact that the future's model will probably be digital purchases stored in the cloud and accessed anywhere.

People are making fun of a laughable attempt to DRM movies that people bought before DRM, at cost to the consumer.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[interkin3tic]

Wow, what a deal.

MPAA: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Us: Uh, you're not Darth Vader, and we don't need to take the deal. We're going to continue ripping our movies for backup if we want.

MPAA: I FORCE CHOKE YOU! [extends hand]

Us: This is almost as painful to watch as episode one.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[gstoddart]

Nobody is protesting the fact that the future's model will probably be digital purchases stored in the cloud and accessed anywhere.

I'm not protesting it ... but I'm not going there until I have no other choice.

I want my media contained on my machine, and in a way that doesn't require an internet connection or make it possible for someone to decide that I've "unbought" it.

I'm not paying my ISP for the bandwidth to download something I already have ... I for one will not be putting anything into the cloud, because you basically lose control over it.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Dogtanian]

"Laserdisc looks so much better" (I kid you not, those were prominent arguments against DVD in those days).

I didn't have one at the time, but weren't some of the early laserdiscs apparently quite poor? I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember hearing some of them were single layer (*), the transfers weren't apparently too great (the first Blade Runner DVD issue was apparently rubbish) and/or the compression wasn't that well done. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a well-done Laserdisc would beat a poor DVD, or at least its limitations wouldn't be as obnoxious as visibly blocky compression.

(*) Actually, I have a DVD with a *2005* issue date on it that is a single layer (I'd checked when I noticed some distracting compression artifacts and suspected the reason). Granted, it was only a 109 minute film with no extras, but the compression was still clearly visible. (Probably didn't help that it apparently hadn't been remastered that much, as perversely lower-quality and noisier material tends to require more compression to compensate for that wasted reproducing the noise(!))

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is protesting the fact that the future's model will probably be digital purchases stored in the cloud and accessed anywhere.

I'm not protesting it ... but I'm not going there until I have no other choice.

Arrr, there's always a choice, matey. When bowing and scraping to the king's men becomes too hard for ye, mayhap you'll sign articles with us?

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[gstoddart]

Arrr, there's always a choice, matey. When bowing and scraping to the king's men becomes too hard for ye, mayhap you'll sign articles with us?

Well, I get sea-sick, have a slight phobia of parrots, and I'm not surrendering the booty under any circumstances. But I'll keep you in mind.

The wenches, rum and singing sound fun, however, as do the cool hats.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Dogtanian]

Old people don't get it, and they never will. The digital revolution is about what's possible that wasn't possible before, not about doing everything the way you did it before only with digital files instead of physical media.

Yes, this is my theory on (partly) why DVD recorders rose then fell in popularity.

DVD recorders are obviously based on different technologies to VCRs, but from a consumer point of view, the usage model is similar- removable media that stores a similar quantity of video. You basically use it like you use a VCR, but with discs instead of tapes. Also, prerecorded DVDs and players replaced prerecorded videocassettes, so shouldn't video cassette recording be replaced by DVD recording? You can see how people used to VCRs would mentally have perceived the DVD recorder as their logical successor.

Except that this is flawed because it forgets that most recording on VCRs was done for timeshifting purposes rather than archiving, and now that PVRs/DVRs exist, they're way more useful because they remove the need to faff about with (and store) tapes altogether, hold more than enough for most people's timeshifting use and tend to include useful facilities like "series record" (i.e. no messing about with timers).

The video recorder was the best way of doing that in its day, but the DVD Recorder isn't the best way of doing it nowadays.

IMHO, people's thinking has now been weaned off the "VCR model" of doing things and they have now realised the benefits of the DVR. I also think that people realised that DVD recorders were a PITA, with media type compatibility issues and general temperamentality that made them less straightforward than a VCR replacement ought to have been. They might be useful for archiving, but the "old way of thinking" would blind one to the fact they're not, and were never, the VCR's true successor.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[houghi]

but I'm not going there until I have no other choice.

And that is why they will succeed. Because you think that at some point you have no choice, so you will go there.
I will not go there. is the only option. And that might mean not seeing any movies. The moment you are willing to accept whatever they trow at you, you have lost.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[markdavis]

>Wow, what a deal.

Really! I am so excited! And then I would *NOT* be able to play it on any of my Linux machines, on my TiVo, on my phone, on my Xoom tablet, on any device NOT connected to the Internet, or behind any type of restrictive connection.

And for those who DO have a device that is "approved" and "connected", they will have to deal with ISP data overages, server loads, logins, DRM, and virtual media that could just "disappear" at any time for any number of reasons.

Great job, Warner! Just what we have been waiting for.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Seriously, who the hell is in charge at Warner Home Video these days?

I suspect that their "washington" men may have had something to do with it. A fair few politicians support the idea of allowing private copies or format shifting of movies that one already owns on DVD/Bluray, and for good reason: it is an eminently reasonable notion that you can watch a movie any way you like if you've paid for it. The fact that these politicians don't openly support or vote for this has less to do with their actual convictions than with political expedience, and that might change.

This way, the movie studios can kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Not only format shifting is gaining political momentum, but some politicians (quite a few actually here in the Netherlands, for instance) even feel that they should not prosecute content pirates too harshly, if at all, as long as there is no viable legal alternative to obtain downloadable or streamed content. With this insane scheme, movie studios can claim that there now is a viable legal alternative to piracy, as well as a good legal way to format shift. Even if no actual consumer ever makes use of this service, they only have to convince the legislators that a legal alternative is now finally here, and they ought to outlaw all other options.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Kjella]

People are making fun of a laughable attempt to DRM movies that people bought before DRM, at cost to the consumer.

Apparently DeCSS has been around so long you forgot that DVDs always had DRM. It's not effective anymore and it hasn't been for 15 years, but there was no before. That people bought DVDs after DeCSS came knowing they could rip it as much as they wanted anyway is a completely different matter.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Endo13]

Not true. That's what copyright has been perverted to now, but that's not what it was supposed to be. Copyright is supposed to be the public temporarily giving up their right to do whatever they want with what they bought so the creator/author has temporary exclusive distribution rights to provide a monetary incentive for the creation of said work. The goal of copyright was not to allow people to make money. The goal was to have more works created for the public, with the assumption that more works is a good thing. The money is just the carrot to entice the artists/authors/creators/whatever to create those works. Or to put it another way, the money is the means, not the end. The original authors of copyright law clearly felt the end justified the means. Unfortuately, due to the steaming pile of feces copyright law has become, that is no longer the case. The end no longer justifies the means. That is why so many people pirate and don't care.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

you never owned it, what you bought was a license, not the content.

So, I scratch my DVD, they'll send me another, right? After all, I didn't buy the DVD itself, I bought a license to the content on the DVD, which, because of the scratch, I can no longer access. And since I paid for access to that content, they'll send me another DVD free, Right??

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[metacell]

That's the part you don't understand, it's been true since the dawn of copyright but many people are just ignorant to the fact that you never owned it, what you bought was a license, not the content.

Not according to the law. When you walk into a store and buy a music CD, DVD, or whatever, you buy that specific physical copy, not a license. You can play that copy at home without a license. A license (=permission) is only required to do something which is normally forbidden, and copyright doesn't apply to private performances, only to public performances and the manufacturing of copies.

The copyright lobby would have you believe they have absolute rights to copyrighted content, and can control when and how you use it. That's a lie. Once they sell you a physical copy, the law allows you to do whatever you want with it (excepting performing it publicly or manufacturing copies).

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[flyneye]

But wait, there's more.
If you act now, we'll throw in a coupon for a free waterboarding.

Re:For only a small fee I can watch my own movie?

[JWSmythe]

    Sorry sir, you damaged the license. You'll need to purchase a new license at full retail value.

Already have some

[GameboyRMH]

DVDShrink, VLC media player, MakeMKV...take your pick.

Re:Already have some

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget handbrake and ripbotx264

Re:Already have some

[Lumpy]

I accidentally installed AnyDVD and it fixes that problem

Wait a minute.

[Hatta]

There are analog DVDs?

Re:Wait a minute.

[Oswald McWeany]

Are those the black CDs that are read by a vibrating needle?

Re:Wait a minute.

[elrous0]

There are two possibilities. Either they're dumb, or they think we are.

Re:Wait a minute.

[suutar]

It's the best way they could extract money from you. Proving you have the original is useless; you could have borrowed it. Building a library using user disks is moronic; I flatly refuse to believe they don't have the data in their archives (disc masters, for example). Going to the store is the way to make sure you're using their approved machine and paying for the privilege.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Megane]

Sort of.

I mean, they're shiny and plastic like DVDs, but instead of a digital encoding, they use a series of pits which represent a fully over-modulated multi-band RF signal. The distance between the pit edges is the analog signal.

Re:Wait a minute.

[xclr8r]

The following is not my stance.

It does a couple things:
1. It shows there are alternatives to piracy so that "I have no alternative" isn't valid anymore.
2. #1 allows legislatures to lay down laws that are harsh since there are alternatives.
3. It's a labor intensive process that will make someone say why bother my time is worth more. Then the option of buying through some internet portal is made available at slightly higher price than conversion. win - win.. right?!?
4. profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Dahamma]

The summary is misleading (as usual). There is no ripping and copying of each DVD, that would be stupid.

From what I have read about it they just verify that you own the DVD, mark the inner ring with some stamp so that you can't just give it to your friend to take back to the store, and then charge you a couple of dollars for each to add the movies to a digital rights locker (Ultraviolet, or whatever). After that you can stream it on any computer/device/tablet/whatever that supports it.

Better deal than buying a whole new streaming version, I guess, but given how they always make the distinction of "ownership" vs. "right to watch" you'd think you already paid for the right to watch it and should get this service for *free*. I guess *if* the streaming service actually stays around it will cover their lifetime streaming costs, etc, for the movie (though I think = $0.50 would cover that, given most people don't end up watching most movies they buy more than once).

Handbrake Plug

[eldavojohn]

I didn't see Handbrake on that page of search results from Freecode so I thought I'd offer this up as well. Fairly simple interface, runs flawlessly on Windows 7 and Ubuntu for me. Open source and easy way to get DVDs into m4v format. Plus there are preset resolutions for things like iPhones, iPods and I found the resolution for a PSP. So basically I spend my flights with circumaural Sennheisers and Futurama or MST3K playing on my PSP -- the worse part about that setup being that Sony's memory card cost me a ton. So far it's ripped the blu-rays I've put in just fine as well.

Rip them to m4v and host them with PS3 Media Server and then they're good to play over your network to your PS3 or XBox 360 (and probably any other UPnP compliant device).

Do I feel guilty that I have shelled out $35+ for each of the 22 sets of MST3K and each season of Futurama and then violated copyright to move said shows onto any device capable of playing video? Not one fucking bit. Go ahead and do your little song and dance, I've got my shit figured out (thank you open source!).

Re:Handbrake Plug

[DurendalMac]

Not to mention that Handbrake is multithreaded to hell and back. Ripping a DVD can keep my i7 2600k @ 4.5ghz pegged above 80% the whole time. A high-quality DVD rip will finish in less than 20 minutes per pass. Haven't tried BluRay yet, but I will soon.

Re:Handbrake Plug

[X0563511]

It uses libdvdread. libdvdread will use libdvdcss if it's available.... so you just have to make sure you have it in a location the dynamic loader can find it (eg with all the other dll/so files in it's installation)

deCSS is for criminals!

[betterunixthanunix]

Let me guess -- deCSS is for criminals, because it allows people to rip DVDs on their own, without paying for the privilege, and without requiring an Internet connection to watch?

Re:deCSS is for criminals!

[X0563511]

DMCA says yes. Civil disobedience says no.

If I buy a DVD

[eternaldoctorwho]

then why am I allowed to watch it as many times as I want? It seems like being able to have unlimited free viewings of the movie would infringe on some sort of DRM protections. I'm surprised they are not arguing that I need to pay per viewing as if I kept going back to the theater. After all, those who own a DVD of a movie will not go back and buy more copies, thus taking business away from movie producers the MPAA studios honest hard-working people.

Re:If I buy a DVD

[suutar]

Because they hadn't figured out a way to make the alternative salable (they tried, but divx (the disk format, not the codec) died an ignominious and well-deserved death), because folks had gotten used to VHS, where you can watch as many times as the tape will survive.

Um, Duh?

[Jane Q. Public]

"The music industry doesn't seem to be any worse off than they were when they insisted upon DRM."

Yeah... because don't use it anymore. At least, most of them have wised up and have dropped their DRM schemes. Where they did have DRM, they lost money.

Now if only some of the game makers would similarly wise up. Like you, Ubisoft.

"Digitize" DVDs?

[Baloroth]

DVD's are already digital. No "digitization" is required.

...people who own standard DVDs will have the option of getting a high-definition digital copy for an extra fee.

Oh right. "HD." Is that upscaled-DVD "HD" or barely 720p "HD"?

Eventually, consumers will be able to put DVDs into PCs or certain Blu-ray players that will upload a copy, similar to the way people turn music CDs into MP3 files.

Yes. That already exists. Except they want to put it in the cloud, so the movie you bought, then paid extra for to have in non-physical form, can still be completely controlled by them. Sure, that'll work. /sarcasm

"Own" is the wrong word

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Will the video distributors ever offer DRM-free files that you own?

It is the position of the movie industry that you are renting viewing rights with any movie purchase and nothing more. So no, they will never, ever offer files that consumers "own". Some people will actually take them up on this "offer" but it won't be very many.

Re:"Own" is the wrong word

[gstoddart]

Their "position" is irrelevant. The law says otherwise.

For now.

Don't forget, due to lobbying pressures by the *AAs, some countries are moving to make it a criminal act to circumvent any form of copyright encryption.

And, game manufacturers are trying to establish that a video game is a "service" not a "good" so they can yank it out from underneath you anytime they like.

They are trying very hard (and succeeding to a certain extent) in convincing lawmakers that the current laws are inadequate to maintain their desired level of revenue.

They don't care about what's legal now, they want to make it all illegal ... and then make sure everything you do can be monetized so you have to pay for every time you watch (and for every person watching). Hell, Sony would be the first company to argue against what they argued for with the early Beta VCRs ... that you don't have the right to record for personal use to watch later.

Think of the whole HDMI spec being required to implement HDCP -- I know people who bought HDTVs 10+ years ago that can't actually get an HD image anymore because the TV isn't "allowed" to receive it.

Give it time, it will be made illegal, and they'll probably try to make it retroactive, so that possessing stuff that was ripped before the law is still illegal.

And, for the record, I hope to hell I'm wrong.

They stabbed it with their steely knives...

[wbr1]

...but they just can't kill the beast (that is the extant movie industry).

Anyone remember when you could get self-destructing DVD's that had an oxidizing layer that only made them good for a few days? That flopped, then IIRC Disney bought and tried to resurrect the tech.

Anytime these somebody at one of these companies gets an idea on how to put a fence around their users, they try it. The general idea seems to be if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

Every time I hear of one of these crackpot schemes I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I do get an image in my mind of Daffy Duck going "mine, mine, mine, mine" as he shrinks away.

The music and television references in the above are there because I want them to be. Issues a takedown if you must!

Re:They stabbed it with their steely knives...

[91degrees]

The self destructing DVDs weren't a terrible idea. It allowed a rental model without having to return them. This would have made it a consumer convenience.

The problem is public acceptance. I think people have a natural belief that the cost of buying something is related to the cost to make it. If they can buy exactly the same thing for less, but they're paying extra to have it not be deliberately sabotaged. Even if they do understand the business model it's hard to shake this feeling of being fleeced.

Re:They stabbed it with their steely knives...

[elrous0]

The self destructing DVDs weren't a terrible idea. It allowed a rental model without having to return them. This would have made it a consumer convenience.

No, in actual practice Divx discs (the format the GP was talking about, not to be confused with the divx codec), were piece-of-shit lame versions of the far superior DVD's. If that bastard of a format had won out (and it wasn't intended to supplement DVD, mind you, it was trying to kill DVD), we would have a world today of DVD's that each require activation at each viewing, had no extras, wasn't available in widescreen or anamrophic and which could be shut off at anytime by the studio (forcing you to rebuy it).

It should tell you something that Divx was co-created by a bunch of lawyers at a Hollywood law firm.

Two Words..

[Nonillion]

No Thanks...

Re:huh

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Warner Brothers has just announced a new 'Disc-to-Digital' program to convert your DVDs into digital files...

It's already digital.

Yeah... here's the rest of the sentence you only got halfway through:

...that you can play on your internet-connected computers.

Ah... now it's all clear!

Fuck you, Warner Bros.!

[ISurfTooMuch]

Yeah, I know this post really adds nothing new to this discussion, but I just have to say it. Fuck you, Warner Bros.! I'll rip my DVD's--you know, the ones I paid for--on my own computer, in the comfort of my own home, on my schedule, and I'll watch them anywhere I please. And you know what, if I take a notion, I'll even set up a media server and stream them all over my house. And you won't see one extra penny from any of this.

Oh, and I'll show others how to do the same thing.

You guys had a golden opportunity here. You could have offered digital copies of the movies people already bought for a reasonable price, maybe as a streaming option, but no, you not only decided to charge them, but you went out of your way to make it more inconvenient than it would be if they simply do it themselves. You really are a bunch of geniuses. Please tell us where you got your MBA's so we can all go there and develop the acute business acumen that you obviously possess.

I can't wait until Hollywood unions find out.

[Picass0]

The MPAA and RIAA have been playing the shell game of leasing and owning content with consumers for years. They might have finally stuck their foot in it.

The RIAA is currently going after digital music re-sellers with the argument that consumers licensed the music use and do not own the asset for re-sale. Recently musicians have taken notice of the case because they get a one time payment for each sale. Treating the sale as a license means they are being grossly underpaid.

Now Warner is going to legally re-define your DVD from a sale to a digital license. I have a feeling many of the hundreds of people involved in creating each film will have an opinion about this.

My internet connection

[Anonymous Coward]

If I own a copy 5GB of data, I'm NOT going to re-download it every time I want to play it. What if my internet access is capped?

  I pay when:
I buy the DVD
When they rip it for me
When I download it
When I download it again
When I download it again again
When they want fees for hosting it for me (betcha they will)
Can someone remind me whats in it for me?

Re:huh

[J'raxis]

Slashdot stips the unicode trademark symbol. Shame on them!

Well of course they don't support the technology: It's only fourteen years old, after all. What did you think this was, some sort of cutting-edge technology news site?

well why didn't you say it was so easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here all this time I was using handbrake and clicking the encode button!

Content Providers are consumer hostile

[AnalogDiehard]

Judging from Sony's Rootkit fiasco and the content industry's push toward pay-per-view, tethered content, and self-destructing media I no longer trust any application or service from content providers.

Wonderous

[lightknight]

Let's see here. Rather than takes Valve's approach to things (they are actually successfully competing against 'free,' which is the technological equivalent of making a river flow upstream), they instead take the most ass-way possible to providing 'backups' to customers.

It's like they have some form of a powerful character disorder, where they can see others profiting (legally) through content distribution systems, but can't quite grasp the concept that they need to deliver the content, with minimal fuss, at acceptable pricing, to their customers in order to get some green. Their attempts to create 'new' systems compares favorably with the "Supervisor" sketch from AQHF -> they aren't really new, but for some reason the people creating them think they are. "That's it boys, the problem with the previous system isn't that the customers hated being treated like dogs, it's that the interface wasn't shiny / restrictive enough!"

Allow me to help you with the right DRM system design, since you seem to be suffering from an inability to figure it out yourselves. 1.) The customer should be able to access said content in an off-line mode, without having to provide a fingerprint / urine analysis, 2.) the content should be downloaded to the customer's machine (f*ck streaming), 3.) (and this is key) ensure that you actually keep said content updated (studio releases a change to a scene, because they left a mic visible somewhere? automatically send that out), 4.) ensure pricing (monthly, seasonal) deals (actual deals, not the pathetic jokes that you wish were deals); why? because it undercuts the people who might be setting up factories to stamp out that stuff on DVDs (because you know from finance & accounting, that you can erect a barrier to entry to a market by ensuring that any new players will never be able to recoup their investments; and you can even do that without having to pay off DC), 5.) do not piss off the customer, do not piss off the customer, do not piss on the customer, 6.) while I am sure that you have many other wonderful products you think that customer might be interested in, do not make them mandatory to watch before the customer can watch said purchased content (if you haven't heard the amount of b*tching that goes on whenever you sit through 30 minutes of previews at the theater, or 15 minutes on a DVD, you need only open your window...).

iTunes Match

[rogueippacket]

At first, I thought this sounded like iTunes Match, but for movies - load disc copy of movie into PC, receive rights to the original high-definition video file stored on Warner's servers. An easy and painless way to "launder" your collection of DVDs, no questions asked, with the kicker that each digital file is going to be DRM'ed and watermarked to prevent you from seeding it to The Pirate Bay. I'm sure most users would consider this a fair trade, even with an associated yearly fee, as they are getting something of value for very little effort - but it turns out I was wrong, and this is the most retarded idea they've come up with yet.

Copying-labor fee or License-to-watch fee?

[billstewart]

If they want to charge a buck or so for the labor of digitizing the DVD, burning it onto a new memory stick, handling all the plastic, etc., that's fine. I probably won't use the service, but it's reasonable. On the other hand, if they want to charge me a higher price for a license to view the intellectual property that I've already paid for, no, that's Piracy and I want no part of it :-)

Meanwhile, I've bought DVDs that have some stupid Macrovision copy protection on them, and I can't play them on my Tivo's DVD drive because my TV has a built-in VCR, and something about it triggers the copy protection so the picture keeps dimming in and out. Is there any easy way to get rid of it by ripping it onto my PC and then burning a DVD myself, or does the copy protection slip through that?

Re:Copying-labor fee or License-to-watch fee?

[WillyWanker]

Ripping software should strip out any Macrovision protection.